ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted on opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
S.W. by P.W. v. B.K.
71A03-1012-PO-655
Protective order. Reverses trial court’s denial of S.W.’s motion to correct error, remands for a hearing on civil contempt petition, and orders S.W. to be reimbursed $250 appellate filing fee. Held that Indiana code states filing fees will not be assessed for a proceeding seeking relief from or enforcement of a civil protective order.

Paternity of A.S.; B.S. v. E.M.
82A01-1006-JP-291
Juvenile paternity. Affirms trial court’s award of primary custody to mother and remands to trial court for determination of how and when the father may make-up lost parenting time.

Wastewater One, et al. v. Floyd County Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.

22A04-1007-PL-418
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment affirming the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of the applicant’s conditional use of application for expansion of a sewage treatment plant.

Harold E. York v. State of Indiana
27A02-1008-CR-956
Criminal. Dismisses Harold York’s interlocutory appeal previously granted by the Court of Appeals, in anticipation of the defendant claiming the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charge of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, a Class D felony. In its decision to dismiss, the appeals court held that the state did not allege York had failed to register under the lifetime requirement, but that he violated the Registration Act by failing to include his fiancee’s house as his residence.  

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.K.; C.W. v. IDCS (NFP)
42A04-1010-JT-699
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Christian D. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation and decision to allow hearsay testimony.
 
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT